Business and management

Piracy

Prepare to repel boarders

SOMALI pirates can be persistent. They have attacked the Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by an American subsidiary of Denmark's Maersk Line, no fewer than five times, most recently in May. In the first attack, in 2009, the captain was held hostage until the US Navy rescued him. Then Maersk put private armed guards on the ship. Since then, it has successfully repelled all boarders.

Maersk says it is only arming a few ships plying the pirate-infested waters off East Africa. But the practice is spreading rapidly among shipping firms despite the cost, which can run to $100,000 per voyage for a four-man team. That is because the number of attacks, off Somalia and elsewhere, has kept growing despite the strengthening of naval patrols (see chart). The European Union's NAVFOR task-force, NATO warships and other navies patrol the waters off Somalia, but this has only pushed the pirates out into the open ocean, extending their attack zone towards India's coast and as far south as Mozambique's. This has forced the shipping industry, its insurers, and the national and international authorities that oversee them to accept that private armed guards are a necessity.

On October 11th British and American navy ships rescued an Italian cargo vessel seized the previous day in the Indian Ocean, after, somewhat improbably, finding a message in a bottle that the hostages threw overboard. But, such are the millions to be made from ransoms and cargo theft, this success is most unlikely to deter the pirates. In the past month, according to NAVFOR, ransoms have had to be paid to free two Greek-owned ships, leaving a further ten large vessels (and countless smaller ones) still in the pirates' hands, along with more than 250 hostages. A NATO commander has predicted that, with the end of the south-west monsoon season, pirate attacks will only increase in the coming months.

Until February the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents the world's merchant shipowners, opposed the use of armed guards—even as some members were discreetly hiring them. Since the chamber changed its line, the number of owners tooling up has accelerated. Now, says Simon Bennett, its spokesman, perhaps 20% of all ships passing through the risky parts of the Indian Ocean have armed guards aboard—typically retired marines or the like.

In recruiting armed security men, some shipowners have defied the laws of the countries where their vessels are registered. But governments, unable to provide the naval cover the shipowners want, are one by one legalising the practice. Spain, one of the earliest to let its fishing-boats carry armed guards, said on September 27th that they would now be allowed to use machineguns and other heavy weapons against the pirates' AK-47s.

Some countries, such as America and Denmark, have introduced licensing schemes for owners who want to arm their ships. Britain is among those still considering legalisation, and Greece's shipping industry is pressing its government to do likewise. The UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO), while still not endorsing the practice, last month asked Somalia's neighbours to let armed merchant ships call at their ports. The ICS says it understands Egypt is to lift its ban on armed merchant ships' passage through the Suez canal. But the Indian government is still said to disapprove of armed merchant ships calling at its ports: their guards either have to go elsewhere or dump their weapons overboard.

An official inquiry in the Netherlands last month recommended that the government itself do the hiring of armed guards, enlisting them as temporary members of the armed forces. This is one potential way to ease worries about the spread of what would in effect be private navies on the high seas—something not seen since government-sponsored “privateers” were banned in the 19th century.

The IMO says armed guards should not be an alternative to using other defensive methods, such as knocking pirates into the sea with high-pressure hoses, or installing strengthened “citadels” on ships in which crews can take refuge from attacks. However, what is concentrating shipowners' minds, says Neil Smith of the Lloyd's Market Association (which represents underwriters on the London insurance market) is that no ship with armed guards has yet been taken by pirates. The question, he says, is whether as more ships arm themselves, the pirates will use more violent tactics.

Shipowners' insurers are worried that ill-trained guards without insurance of their own might shoot someone and land them with huge claims. North of England P&I, a shipowners' mutual-insurance club, is setting up a vetting scheme for security firms. Andrew Glen, one of its officials, says member companies have sometimes struggled to find suitable contractors, so it makes sense to compile a list of pre-approved ones for them to choose from. The scheme will ensure, among other things, that the security firms themselves have adequate indemnity cover.

There do not yet seem to have been any claims, or lawsuits, over the use of armed ship guards, says Tom Heinan of International Registries (which runs the Marshall Islands' shipping register). But shipowners using them could face legal action in various places: their own country, the flag state of their ship, the home countries of injured crewmen, and so on. All the more reason to ensure that the guards are competent and well-insured.

We could of course go the opposite route and do the "Free Market Enterprise" solution. We could take large boats and dress them up like cargo vessels, and have them sail up and down the coast of Somalia to appear to be slow and lucrative cargo vessels. Then we could sell hunting liscences to westerners who want to get in real life fire-fights. When the pirates get within however so many yards of the boat trying to board it, the hunters are allowed to open fire with their finely crafted sniper rifles.

I believe that the use of Armed guards is a fitting response to the pirates and currently it has been working. Sadly, many governments disprove of this which can cause more problems then they fix. Also, the guards could shoot at the wrong people, although i really don't see how this could happen. It is to bad that people have to pay for security forces but at least it gives them away to fight the pirates since the governments are struggling to handle the pirates.

The idea of having armed soldiers on a ship to defend it is somewhat scary. But with pirating as bad as it is, it is a necessity. The idea of having an approved list of guards to choose from is a great idea. This could be further complemented with the government (at least here in the US), to receive their training and weapons so they would be well trained, well armed, and well disciplined. Which actually appears to be what unofficially is happening, but with a formal agreement the soldiers would have much better access and be much more legitimate. However with anything the US government tries to get into they must keep their fingers out it any further, that seems to be the one biggest problem they have.

Not arming oneself with the necessary tools in the face of aggression on any scale encourages more aggression. Be it the kid who gets threatened for his lunch money, to the tax payer for whom the government demands more of his money, to the nation that gets ransacked by another nation for its wealth... Not fighting back only encourages more aggression, not less.

I cant believe pirating is still a method of sustaining wealth, especially wealth in the amounts that these somalian pirates are gathering. Defending coasts with armed guards seems to be a successful way to prevent significant losses from pirate attacks. If the coast were to be guarded for a long enough time, and with sufficient weaponry, the pirate attacks should decrease permanantly. I cant bring myself to believe that these somalian pirates are a highly organized crime group with enough resources to persistently attack these heavily guarded coasts. I do agree that having both NATO and private guards is a good idea and i also believe that safehouses or "safeboats" should be provided for shelter if pirates were to attack.

employing armed guards is the best solution available. why would we waste the resources of our navies to chase a few skiffs back and forth? and we most certainly do not need to follow the pirates to their bases. they do not live in some easily identified pirate cove with parrots and treasure and barrels of whiskey. most likely they live in coastal cities with their families and to attack them there would mean we have to start bombing parts of somalia. anyone who suggests this is the solution is either a fool or a...actually there is only one option.

They have attacked the Maersk Alabama, a container ship owned by an American subsidiary of Denmark’s Maersk Line, no fewer than five times... ...the captain was held hostage until the US Navy rescued him. Then Maersk put private armed guards on the ship. Since then, it has successfully repelled all boarders.

That captain should testify to the namby pamby IMO, and he should say, "You are either with us, or with the pirates."

I really, really wish that the following did not seem all too likely to happen:

Some Somali pirates attack a ship, and are beaten off with csualties. The ship has some connection, however tenuous, to the United States. Some personal injury lawyer files suit in an American court, and devotes a lot of energy to emoting about how horrible conditions are in Somalia, and how the pirates were merely trying to feed their families. No denial of the fact that they were engaging in piracy; just emotion about how they are actually somehow the victim.

And the jury, as all too frequently happens, awards the pirates hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

I think it's a very good idea for merchant cargo ships to arm themselves with weapons. Yeah we can argue that the navy or coast guard could provide security, but they are not always at the scene of the crime. I don't understand why the IMO would even suggest using hoses to fend off pirates. Ak-47 > water hose. Countries that are only requiring a license to hold carry arms are in the right direction. With millions of dollars at stake, you can't afford to be having water gun fights against an enemy that means business.

To hunter3@vt.edu and all who are misled by his comment: You suggest my Alma matter's very motto, Acta Non Verba, then go on to say that the US Merchant Marine(s)(sic) is a branch of our military to serve as armed guards aboard ships. Have you figured out my Alma matter yet? The US Merchant Marine Academy. We are trained as professional sailors and shipboard engineers, as are graduates of the other maritime schools, and commissioned as Navy Reserve officers - not armed guards for our nation's merchant fleet. Further, no merchant mariner is a member of the armed forces or member of the Dept of Defense at all; we fall under the Department of Transportation. I agree that action must be taken, and as a man who has traversed the area numerous times aboard vessels flying the US flag, I concur that a ship and her crew should have a means of defending themselves. However, a rather hairy and deep rabbit hole is opening right now, and we must be careful to avoid a sort of seaborne arms race and reinstatement of privateering, for it is surely a thin line between privateer and pirate.

Although this may seem very militaristic, it seems that the US should attempt to preemptively attack mother ships. Destroying and killing pirates will make the cost very expensive. Black flag negotiations could help, traditionally terrorists have no rights. This would make it possible to discourage the pirates from continuing operations. Although pirates may be only a part of the problem, attacking Somalia could also be a way to do this. The solution doesn't seem conducive of non military means. Ships that are not authorized by international treaties should not be allowed to use the open seas in these areas until the pirate issue is contained. Somalia has to suffer until the pirate issue is contained. Peaceful means are not viable at this point, Somalia is not a state with which non force related means of persuasion are possible.

All these countries are trying to find ways to protect merchandise ships by spending money on weapons to protect them. It may be better to help the country itself so that there is no need for the pirates. While this may not be an easy task, it is better than the road we are currently going down.

Obviously something needs to be done about the pirates, letting defenseless ships voyage across the ocean is like giving a treasure hunter a map to where he needs to be. The problem with hired crews is that there is always unintended consequences of every decision. While it may deter the pirates for a while it may only make them desperate. Think about it these pirates know only one life its not like they are going to call it quits just because the game got harder. If they shift gears and pick up heavy weaponry we might switch from hold ups to war on the open sea.

Why don't these armed guards base themselves in two or three towns, either end the trouble zone, helicopter out to the various vessels as they enter the zone and heli off as the vessel leaves? I'm sure it would avoid some of the legal issues and be much cheaper and more efficient.